I have been blissfully ignorant of the existence of Andrew Tate (above) until very recently; my life was better before. He is considered a social media influencer, aka “someone with power in the culture without any genuine reason to have it.” Tate was a professional kickboxer who appeared on the British reality show “Big Brother”—which is just as moronic as the American version— and was the source of controversy when his social media posts got him kicked off the show. He began offering paid courses and memberships through his website promoting an “ultra-masculine, ultra-luxurious lifestyle,” as well as sexism and misogyny. Last year, Tate and his brother were arrested in Romania on suspicions of human trafficking. He’s also been charged with rape.

In summary, this creep makes Kim Kardashian seem like Eleanor Roosevelt. But he’s got a buff bod and drives cool cars, so British boys and teens are suckers for his act. In response, British schools, the New York Times tells us, are now spending class time condemning Tate rather than teaching their students math, reading and critical thinking.

“I am sad that I have taken up important curriculum time to talk about Andrew Tate,” Chloe Stanton, an English teacher in East London tells the Times. “But women have to fight enough in society without this type of attitude to deal with.” The Times writes, “Believing that schools are a microcosm of society — and a preview of its future — educators said it was crucial to target Mr. Tate’s influence early. Since last fall, principals have sent letters to parents warning of his reach, and Britain’s education secretary has said that influencers like Mr. Tate could reverse the progress made in countering sexism.”

Chloe Stanton also tells the Times that Tate “is brainwashing a generation of boys, and it’s very frightening. They seem to think he is right. He’s right because he’s rich.” So she agrees with Britain’s education secretary and school principals across the country that teachers have to brainwash the brainwashed boys to reject him.

Wrong. Unethical. I call this “micro-viewpoint indoctrination” because it is far more specific than the typical educational indoctrination in environmental activism, anti-gun perspectives, racial grievances and social justice propaganda. All of these are also unethical, varieties of political and social thought-control that may be less pernicious than what the Hitler Youth were subjected to but equally totalitarian in methodology and principle. However, the anti-Tate brain-washing—good brainwashing, you know—targets a single individual. It is not the proper role of the schools to be pushing particular political, ideological and social agendas, but it is really not the role of the schools to tell students which individuals they should and shouldn’t be listening to, watching and favoring.

Tate is an easy call: he’s unequivocally repugnant…but so was Howard Stern at the peak of his popularity. Andrew Dice Clay. Or, if you prefer, Stokely Carmichael, Jerry Rubin, Abbie Hoffman, Hugh Hefner, Joe McCarthy, Angela Davis, Bernie Sanders, Richard Nixon, Jane Fonda, Timothy Leary, Mick Jagger …or Satan.

The schools and their staff have neither the training, moral standing, skill or intelligence to presume to tell students who they should or shouldn’t pay attention to, emulate or admire. They also don’t have proper authority: parents may lack moral standing, skill or intelligence, but they have something crucial that teachers don’t have: the right to raise their children as they see fit.

Tate may be an easy call, but many teachers in the U.S. think that Donald Trump is just as easy a call: he’s evil, and children must be taught to fear him. Yet Greta Thunberg—speaking of people with completely contrived authority—recently said that criminal acts may be justified, insisting, “If we look through history; if people who were advocating for example for social justice, if they only used the legal methods then we wouldn’t be where we are today.” By all means, school classes at the appropriate level should discuss the ethical issues raised by such “ends justify the means” advocacy. Teaching that Greta Thunberg herself must be rejected, however, crosses the same ethics line that condemning Tate does.

Teachers, woke that most of the ar, would never condemn Thunberg, however—and that alone demonstrates why Great Britain’s anti-Andrew Tate campaign is a dangerous slippery slope. Teachers may be less destructive “influencers” than Tate, but they still can’t be trusted when they engage in indoctrination rather than teaching facts and skills.